Non dissipation orders
in this study refer to orders preventing one or both parties from
disposing of assets. They may be directed to specific assets or a
general prohibition on all property or wealth. They generally result
from allegations a party is hiding or liquidating assets to try to avoid
payment of obligations.

Non dissipation orders
can be problematic in divorces where large amounts of money may have to
be generated quickly. If a person cannot access their savings it can be
difficult to finance large retainers for lawyers. Freezing orders might
impede a party from running their own business. Someone who becomes
unemployed could be utterly reliant on savings. A divorce may entail
many additional costs. Exclusive possession of the family home for one
spouse usually generates large expenses for the other in resettling
Large retroactive or imputed support payments may be hard to sustain
from income alone. Credit could become impossible to obtain. They would
even be denied social services because of the assets they own but are
precluded from using.

Non dissipation orders
are generally interim orders in effect until some final resolution is
obtained. They may be sustained indefinitely until some payment is made
or criteria met. Violation of non dissipation orders can result in
contempt or other punitive measures. 40 non dissipation cases were
identified in the data base. A summary of these cases and their outcomes
is included as Appendix I 1 for cases where a non dissipation order was
imposed on a single party, and Appendix I 2 where a mutual non
dissipation orders were imposed.

For family cases where
non dissipation of assets was an issue the data is as follows

Party

Non dissipation ordered

Overturned

Male

24

2

Female

2

1

For mutual non
dissipation orders

Number of cases

Wife gets spousal support

Man gets spousal support

Wife gets house

Man gets house

House is sold

15

14

0

11

2

2

Summarized in
percentage terms

Party

Total

Non dissipation ordered

Overturned

Male

100

96.0

8.3

Female

100

4.0

0.0

For mutual non dissipation
orders in percentage terms

Number of cases

Wife gets spousal support

Man gets spousal support

Wife gets house

Man gets house

House is sold

100

93.3

0

73.4

13.3

13.3

% Men with Non Dissipation orders = 24 / 26 x 100 =
92.3 %

% Women with Non
Dissipation Orders = 2 / 26 x 100 = 7.7 %

Conclusions

2 men who had non
dissipation orders put against them had the orders overturned which is
equivalent to receiving relief. No women had her non dissipation order
overturned which is equivalent to relief. When relief is considered the data
is as follows.

% Men with Non
Dissipation orders = 22 / 23 x 100 = 95.7 %

% Women with Non
Dissipation Orders = 1 / 23 x 100 = 4.3 %

It can be concluded that
non dissipation orders are ordered against men at a rate of 22 to 1 compared
to women. For mutual non dissipation orders women received spousal support
93.3 % of the time, and got possession of the family home 73.4 % of the
time. In many of these cases the man must have been left with increased
expenses and decreased means of paying. Some may of entailed additional
costs such as child support or multiple court cases. In this study only one
woman was penalized with a non dissipation order, and did not receive
relief. Of all the couples mutually penalized only one woman did not receive
income adjustment through spousal support.